Mexico "reiterates that the use of firearms to repel a rock attack represents a disproportionate use of force, particularly coming from authorities who receive specialized training on the matter," the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday in a news release.Uh, look here: This isn't a game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors." When young Fernando Valenzuela winds up and flings a rock at you, it's not going to bounce off some magic force-field generated by the Glock in your holster; it'll crack your skull open as handily as it did any of your Australopithecene ancestors. Rocks are lethal weapons, just like knives, guns, two-by-fours, and any number of other things.
Now, as to the fact that video suggests the Border Patrolman may have pulled a Charlie Askins and shot a fleeing person who wasn't chucking rocks at anybody, well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Let him get his day in court.
24 comments:
If they were shot with vintage firearms they would be happier.
Feds go to court?
Shootin' Buddy
"... Fernando Valenzuela..."
But he'd have to find his way off I-285 first!
Todd,
Wasn't that Pascual Perez?
Stoning, it should be noted, is a method of execution dating from earliest history. And this sort of argument was already hashed out during a couple of Palestinian intifadas in which Israeli soldiers lost their lives to stones thrown by bad little boys such as little Sergio.
I always like the test of whether something, like a lamp broken over the deceased victim's head, is really a "deadly weapon": "It killed him, didn't it?"
"And this sort of argument was already hashed out during a couple of Palestinian intifadas in which Israeli soldiers lost their lives to stones thrown by bad little boys such as little Sergio."
I guess the Mexicans have noticed that the Palestinians are set to receive $400,000,000 dollars after using such arguments against the Israelis. Give them a break. Mexicans need $400,000,000, too.
'Doh! You are correct! Same era, different teams.
The concept of "proportionate force" is another ludicrous construct of the liberal mind. Here we have it in an individual confrontation and globally we have it in the various wars.
Actions have consequences. A failure to evaluate the threat and the slightest underestimation of what is appropriately proportional is fatal.
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Cruel philosophy but irrefutable.
This is kind of like the argument that .22LR is an ineffective caliber. I still haven't met anyone who'll volunteer to go out and catch one to prove the point. I bet if we asked the nice man from Mexico's foreign ministry to stand out in a field and catch a rock, he'd decline.
WV:'gamish' It's not a game, per se. It's more gamish.
One of the fallacies I often see in the "proportionate force" argument is the notion that "proportional" and "equal" are synonymous terms. They aren't.
Maybe someone should explain it to the stooopidz that a bullet out of a gun is actually just a fancy, shiny rock that's dispensed from an updated version of David's sling.
You think they'd understand?
Me neither.
Ha! I was going to mention David's sling too! Good call!
What's with the "specialized training on the matter?" I never saw Jack Bauer demonstrate proficiency at avoiding incoming rock fire. There is this nagging concept that cops are trained in everything from birthing babies, dodging rocks and wrenches, to shooting weapons out of people's hands. It's gotta stop.
I seriously doubt that any "fact" exists suggesting the agent deliberately shot a fleeing person in the back. However, if that be the case, the investigators already have the video; let them make any snide accusations and or deliberate inferences about what may or may not have happened; sideways sleight-of-hand accusations are neither helpful, nor wanted, nor justified.
Yeah, I know the Border Patrol are eeeebil Federal Agents... believe it or not, most of them are proponents of smaller government, too. Many are conservative, or even libertarian. Being the "whipping child" kinda tends to do that.
Your snide, sideways attack, implying that the agent murdered someone, is NOT appreciated, and frankly, out of character. I expect to hear such accusations coming from politicians and media talking heads, not Tam.
Yeah, I'm splitting straws, and you might not have meant it that way, but that's how it sounds, and that's how I read it.
I didn't say it was a fact that he shot a fleeing suspect.
I didn't say it was a fact that video shows he shot a fleeing suspect.
I did say it was a fact that a video suggests and et cetera. And then said "let him have his day in court".
Sorry you read a bunch of stuff into what I said, especially after I just spent a paragraph explaining how, if he was having rocks thrown at him, he was justified in defending himself.
Perhaps they should teach us a lesson and initiate a travel boycott against the U.S.
I'm not certain the video suggests such a thing at all. I live in the area where this happened (within 100 miles, at least), and the local media is reporting that the video backs up the claim that the dead teen was actively throwing rocks when he got shot. This is what I was getting at; re-reading my first comment, I realize -I- wasn't that clear on this matter.
Didn't mean for you (or anyone else reading) to think I was criticizing you for something you didn't say, or that I was trying to put words in your mouth. I'm nit-picking over semantics here, but IMO, rather important semantics. The mere inference that something untoward happened has, in past, severely influenced and slanted public opinion. Sometimes it DID happen, sometimes it didn't. But such inferences before the results of the investigation are released are almost always detrimental to the accused, guilty or not.
By all means, let him have his day in court - but let's try not to unduly influence anyone before such time, ok?
I like the Hitchhiker's Guide solution: Anyone who wants to be President (Congressman, etc.) should on no account be allowed to do the job.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Getting bonked by a rock, baseball bat, etc. is going to do major damage. But most people continue to get information via the media, which will report a person was "stabbed, beaten", etc. What they don't report is the permenant nerve, muscle or brain damage.
Here's the video:
http://univision.com/content/videoplayer.jhtml?cid=2432212
I am glad I didn't make that very difficult (if on purpose) shot.
Is it just me, or doesn't it seem strange that the Mexican Gov't can muster hundreds of Federales when a 15 year old punk messes with our Border Patrol, yet are conspicuous by their absence when our ranchers are being murdered? Hey Mexico, here's a novel idea: you patrol your side of the border, and we'll patrol ours, and maybe only people and stuff that are supposed to pass through will! Of course, we could do like North Korea and shoot smugglers, just like they did to THREE Chinese last week!
Is there a difference between "fleeing" and "Falling back" to a different position? If so, how can you tell while on a 2 way range?
Not trying to stir anything. I'm just curious about people's opinions. Ok, especially Tam's.
Well, the last one caused an uproar, and it was even more righteous than this one.
Maybe next time Calderon comes to speak in one of our big gubmint buildings, we should greet him with lots of throw rocks, since his gubmint thinks they're so harmless.
Post a Comment